Finnish Television ... Anyone? (Updated)

Andrew Bolt writing for the Courier Mail in Australia has introduced us to … television from Finland.

The Finns have produced a half hour documentary that debunks the computer models predicting global warming and the IPCC’s use of climate data gleaned from the land of the reindeer and the Juhannus. Finnish scientists are not happy about their data being abused by the IPCC.

You can watch the half hour program here . Subtitles in English are provided.

Don't hold your breath waiting for this kind of penetrating analysis and criticism on American television.

Hat tip: John McMahon

Randall Hoven adds:

Wow! I finally watched the video. Here is what I remember of what our "scientists" will do:

(1) From a set of data, choose only the data points that support their theory, and ignore the rest. (2) Refuse to release their data to other scientists and researchers. (3) When new data refute their thesis, completely ignore the data. (4) Show graphs upside down, without explanation. (5) Assume a water-vapor feedback effect in computer models that is not only wrong, but also of the wrong SIGN, compared to physical observations.

This is bad, bad, bad. This is Orwellian bad. This is "get out of the house" bad.

Andrew Bolt writing for the Courier Mail in Australia has introduced us to … television from Finland.

The Finns have produced a half hour documentary that debunks the computer models predicting global warming and the IPCC’s use of climate data gleaned from the land of the reindeer and the Juhannus. Finnish scientists are not happy about their data being abused by the IPCC.

You can watch the half hour program here . Subtitles in English are provided.

Don't hold your breath waiting for this kind of penetrating analysis and criticism on American television.

Hat tip: John McMahon

Randall Hoven adds:

Wow! I finally watched the video. Here is what I remember of what our "scientists" will do:

(1) From a set of data, choose only the data points that support their theory, and ignore the rest. (2) Refuse to release their data to other scientists and researchers. (3) When new data refute their thesis, completely ignore the data. (4) Show graphs upside down, without explanation. (5) Assume a water-vapor feedback effect in computer models that is not only wrong, but also of the wrong SIGN, compared to physical observations.

This is bad, bad, bad. This is Orwellian bad. This is "get out of the house" bad.